Recommended Posts

They lied and lied and lied again to bring us to this stupid wasteful, pointless war.

Walker, have you ever seen this, this, this, and this. Where in a UN Report they say Iraq is doing something fishy.

All of the world knew Iraq wasn't doing what it was supposed to do. They just didn't want to speak up, and that's what the US and UK did.

Hi all

In reply to Sophion-Black:

You are hoist by your own petard in the very first link you gave.

It is obvious, to one and all, that you never actually read what you posted before you posted it. In fact you did not even read the first page recommendations.

I will now enlighten you and the rest of the forum.

The report is an Australian government report and fully recognises it is influenced by the same and thus recommends a separate independent report to properly assess the bias that wrongly lead Australia into war.

Quote[/b] ]Chapter 5 The Presentation of the Pre-War Intelligence

Recommendation 3

The Committee recommends that there should be an independent

assessment of the performance of the intelligence agencies, conducted by

an experienced former intelligence expert with full access to all the

material, which will report to the National Security Committee of Cabinet

and which, in the light of the matters raised by the consideration of the

It goes on in detail and specificly highlights the TBA's roll through the Office of Special Plans (OSP) in transmiting the false intelligence on which the assesements were made and highlights how the normal profesional intelligence route was sidelined by TBA so that it could use Donald Rumsfeld's incompetant, partisan, amateurs of the OSP.

Quote[/b] ]4.42 Reports from the United States and the United Kingdom have begun

to question the validity of the pre-war intelligence, much of which

relied on Iraqi defectors. The US House Permanent Select Committee

â€œfound â€˜significant deficienciesâ€™ in the capacity of US intelligence

agencies to collect fresh intelligence, and that they used

â€˜circumstantial and fragmentaryâ€™ information with â€˜too many

uncertaintiesâ€™ to conclude that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction

and ties to Al Qaeda.â€65 Reports in the British press quoted US

military intelligence as concluding â€˜that almost all the claims made by

Iraqi defectors about Saddam Husseinâ€™s secret weapons were either

useless or falseâ€™.66 Seymour Hersh wrote in the New Yorker that:

Adnan Ihsan Saeed al Haideri [a defector] claimed he had

visited twenty hidden facilities that he believed were built for

the production of biological and chemical weapons. One, he said, was underneath a hospital in Baghdad. â€¦ UN teams

that returned to Iraq last winter were unable to verify any of

Al Haideriâ€™s claims.67

4.43 According to these reports, the use of defectors as the source of prewar

intelligence was facilitated by the Iraqi National Congress and

supplied through the Office of Special Plans (OSP). â€˜[The defectors]

became a parallel civilian channel for intelligence on Iraq, operating

independently of the uniformed officers running the DIA.â€™68 Other US

intelligence agencies seemed to have had reservations about the

process.

When INR analysts did get a look at the reports, they were

troubled by what they found. â€˜Theyâ€™d pick apart a report and

find out that the source had been wrong before, or had no

access to the information provided.â€™ Greg Thielmann69 told

me [seymour Hersh], â€˜There was considerable scepticism

throughout the intelligence community about the reliability of

Chalabiâ€™s sources, but the defectors reports were coming all

the time. Knock one down and another comes along.

Meanwhile the garbage keeps being shoved straight to the

President.â€™70

4.44 It is clear that the arguments within and between the US agencies

were fierce throughout 2002. Differences of assessment existed

between the CIA and the INR,71 between the INR, the CIA and the

OSP. The Committee asked the Australian agencies whether they

were aware of these differences and of the political pressure on the US

agencies, particularly from the OSP.72

4.45 The Director-General of ONA stated that ONA was not aware of

political pressure on intelligence assessments coming through the OSP.73 They were, however, according to the ONA Liaison Officer,

aware of the disputes. â€˜ONA was well aware of the strength of INRâ€™s

views, not just through cabled reports of mine, but through analyst to

analyst contact, which happened occasionally.â€™74 When asked about

whether political pressure coloured analysis, the liaison officer

acknowledged that â€˜it was a hot political environment in which the

US intelligence community was operating â€¦ [and] â€¦ ONA was well

aware of the context in which [they] were operating.â€™75 He qualified

this with the view that he â€˜never had an instance where [he] had

direct personal knowledge of an intelligence assessment that was

skewed in some way because of political interference.â€™76 It is clear,

however, that ONA was aware of the disputes and they were aware

of the outcomes of the disputes insofar as they could see in the

speeches of the President, the Vice President and the Secretary of

State which of the contending views had prevailed. Given that the

disputes were occurring between an intelligence agency or agencies

on the one hand and a political office on the other, it, therefore,

appears to be disingenuous to disclaim all knowledge of the political

pressures on the agencies.

4.46 DIO argued that â€˜as an agency working for the Under-Secretary of

Defense, they [the OSP] were a legitimate customer of the intelligence

agencies in the US.â€™77 And as a policy advising agency, DIO would

not expect to see the OSP material. However, DIO was

aware of a good deal of tension within the US system. â€¦

There is a lot of dissatisfaction expressed on many occasions

by different players in the system about assessments that are

slightly different from their perspective, and I have heard a

lot of criticism within the Defense organisation about the

performance of the CIA and, similarly, a lot in the CIA about

the performance of Defense personnel. There was an

awareness here at least that, to use Mr Pritchettâ€™s term, policy

was running strong.78

4.47 This awareness appears to have resulted in concern at DIO that

assessments provided to government would take account of any institutional bias in foreign sourced material they received.79 In

addition, however, it is unclear whether the greater resources in

Washington of the Australiaâ€™s Defence intelligence agencies gave

them this greater awareness. The continuing scepticism in the DIO

assessments, compared to those of ONA, might be a reflection of this

appreciation.

4.48 How can agencies in small recipient nations like Australia insulate

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

It is obvious, to one and all, that you never actually read what you posted before you posted it. In fact you did not even read the first page recommendations.

If you notice the footnotes you would see these "reports" are not official but actually civilian in nature. the first footnote is from the washington post, the second from the gaurdian. Now i don't know about you but last time i checked "foreign intelligence" wasn't taught for the press. Nor do i trust the press to head the intell ring.

The recomendation was to get a second opinion, something that doesn't mean its wrong. it means they want to be sure its accurate. Look further in the report in paragraph 5.7 (under the "Evidence" section. look at the claim. now look at the footnote. US House of Representitves. Did you see the content? Now here lies the problem with your claim, its the presses word against the governments. now with the argument of "who is actually paid to protect us?" who do you think is right? annother big question. Who's false claimes started the Spannish-American War? Answer: the press.

But if you honestley looked at only the first link you show you have no dignity. You only comment on the first, what about the other three? Do I need to add more, I remember seing a DoD briefing on Iraq on the same website... but i just haven't gotten around to look for it. Now about your claims of this OSP feeding lies, i'm going to have to look into it. I haven't heard of an office that bypasses the CIA, NSA, and foreign intell offices. let alone the pentagon and its intell. I'll post here in a little bit after i realy look into this OSP.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You mean to tell me that this huge misinformation about iraq is from less than five people "digesting" information? They only conect the dots between terrorist networks, even you can do that. My God boy lol all this doom and gloom about, what... five people ate the most. And to think, where do they get the intell? THE CIA!!! Â

you realy need to look up on your claims. here look at This. Maybe this will change you mind about the "office that is a serious danger to the US"

Pa-Thetic! Besides, the CIA got a team that did the same so now it's done, finnished, no longer needed. Good night!

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

The Office of Special Plans (OSP) were not part of the professional intelligence assessment service.

The OSP were a Partisan group set up by TBA with a specifically mandated agenda to find only proof that Iraq was a clear and present danger, by furnishing intel' that there was WMD, a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, a link between 9/11 and Iraq.

We now all know and are certain of the reality; there was:

No WMD

No link between Al Qaeda and Saddam

No link between 9/11 and Iraq

If you know different Sophion-Black you need to tell the White House straight away Â

In other words the OSP was there to fit the intelligence to the decision that had already been made, that was to attack Iraq.

This is totally counter to the procedure that is supposed to happen of: you find the intelligence, asses it for its accuracy, fill out a report with the assessment, then present it to the cabinet and president for them to make a decision based on the evidence.

The OSP were placed between the White House cabinet and the the intelligence service as a filter and alternate intelligence service to the normal channels (as detailed in the diagram 6th post from top in this page of the thread) they even fed false intelligence of their own making (probably a crime) to the White House cabinet.

As former National Security Council expert on Iraq, Kenneth Pollack said the purpose of the OSP was to:

Quote[/b] ]..dismantle the existing filtering process that for fifty years had been preventing the policy makers from getting bad information. They created stovepipes to get the information they wanted directly to the top leadership...

The OSP provided unassessed intel' from their own sources (probably a crime, it is illegal feed the incorrect intel' to the White house Cabinet or to misdirect the White House cabinet) Their main sources were Iraqi defectors, notably Ahmed Chalabi http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Chalabi and his cronies that had already been dismissed by the CIA and other professional intelligence agencies as liars and unreliable.

That they were passing intel' outside the proper channels is stated by George Tennet

Quote[/b] ]...A special intelligence unit at the Pentagon provided private prewar briefings to senior White House officials on alleged ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda without the knowledge of CIA Director George J. Tenet, according to new information presented at a Senate hearing today.

The disclosure suggests that a controversial Pentagon office played a greater role than previously understood in shaping the administration's views on Iraq's alleged ties to the terrorist network behind the Sept. 11 attacks, and that it bypassed usual channels to make a case that conflicted with the conclusions of CIA analysts...

It is worth noting that several of those involved in the OSP are already under investigation or convicted for criminal activity up to and including: couterfiting, murder, involvement in death squads in Iraq, giving U.S. state secrets to Iran and espionage against the United States.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

If you take the UN and you push them out of the picture who is really left to criticize the US?

The rational thinkers, those who actually can see far beyond borders. They come in every size and shape an place.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]And why is that? Because the assistance we gave them was inadequate AND S. Vietnamese lacked will to stand up on their own. They got assistance all the way back from Kennedy era, but they just couldn't get their own work done.

S. Nam was totally reliant on the US for logistics such as tank and vehicle parts. We supplied them with the equipment but we didn't hand over the factories. Besides, S. Nam was being pushed by the Soviets, Chinese, and N. Vietnam. When all they had was themselves and a little bit of SEATO help. Do you think S Nam could have stood up against all that? The point comes down to this: The United States assured South Vietnam that they will get involved if they saw the imminent capture of South Vietnam. But when it came down to it politics FORCED THE US TO NOT HONOR THAT PLEDGE

Considering that US was not doing well in Vietnam, even if we pledged, it would have been a real hard thing to follow upon.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Just the fact that majority of people now do not support Iraq war is proof that we are not happy with what this administration is doing.

The majority of the people don't like the admin, but do they want to see us "cut and run" like little panzies? No. They all know what a laughing stock we would be if that happened, not to mention the terrorists rolling into New York again.

Repugnicans call it "cut and run" but there is time when you k now that you can't do much. Unfortunately, ego or false pride gets in the way of clear understanding of the situation, and the current administration is refusing to accept that they are not in control of the situation. Being a laughing stock is the price we have to pay because of our mistakes. You seem to think that this would equate to getting NY attacked, but knowing how to fight and which battle to choose and know when to pull back is the wise choice.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Should I ban people here because of the chance that they will be banned?

this isn't about moderation here, its about thousands even millions of lives that if a nuke were to fly no one could stop it.

No, it's about the idea you proposed. Your idea is that some has to be sacrificed for greater good, and I applied it to a hypothetical situation on this forum. If I see a little bit of problem brewing up I should just ban the member according to your argument. So your idea is what's on the debate.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]His works during his time actually managed to put our economy on safer route.

The economy, maybe. The American survivability, no. He could have done more than just launching cruise missiles.

Which would have happened if Republicans did not tackle at every corner.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Conservatives complained against it, and now you are telling that he should have done more even though it was conservatives who were stopping him.

you don't wake up in the morning as a president and ask yourself "how can I be more lovable today?" It's not part of his job to make himself look good its in his job to make sure the American Military can carry out tasks to protect the US.

And it's not part of president's job to wake u in the morning and say, "Who can we invade today?" Even taking care of military is a part of greater picture, which is taking care of America. Clinton tried his best, only to be hampered by GOP.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Hiroshima is proof that we indeed used NBC weapon. We can do it, but we just don't do it after using it once. US didn't purge millions to stay in power, but did put that dictator there or at least help the dictator. I wonder if there were outcry from Republicans when Saddam used gas on Iranians.

After the US dropped leaflets to warn the civilians to get out. If you see a murderer and a rapists fighting and you know it should stop who are you going to help to stop the fight? You don't like either one but you also want to see them both disappear.

The choice is that you can stand back and watch one of them get beatne down and then take the standing one down. unfortuantely, what US did, and mostly by Reagan administration is that they decided to help one of them instead of waiting for one of them to finish.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]According to Rumsfeld and The Bush administration 3 years ago, yes

"Major Combat Operations against the Iraqi Regime"

now it's: "Operations against Saddam loyalists and terrorists"

So you are calling current operations, minor, right?

It was Rumsfeld who said that Iraqis would come greet us with flowers and sing and dance.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Hmm... messed up on the link. well here, I'll post now and fix it after I'm done.

Quote[/b] ]The OSP were a Partisan group set up by TBA with a specifically mandated agenda to find only proof that Iraq was a clear and present danger, by furnishing intel' that there was WMD, a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam, a link between 9/11 and Iraq.

look here:

Quote[/b] ]After the September 11th attack, I identified a requirement to think through what it means for the Defense Department to be at war with a terrorist network. Â This was an unusual circumstance -- warfare has traditionally been against nation states -- and we understood that it presents a number of peculiar conceptual challenges to be at war with a network, or as I've described it as a network of networks of terrorist organizations.

Â Â So, I asked for some people to think through -- first of all, to review the large amount of intelligence on terrorist networks, and to think through how the various terrorist organizations relate to each other and how they relate to different groups that support them; in particular, state sponsors.

That sums up the answer there. First you were wrong to point out TBA set up the group. The person talking is actually Douglas J. Feith. Not the white house, But--instead, the Pentagon. Second It was not formed to find intell specifcally on Iraq, this next quote sums up the real answer:

Quote[/b] ]It did not confine its review to Iraq or al Qaeda. Â I mean, it was looking at global terrorist networks and the full range of state sponsors and other sources of support for terrorist groups. Â Its main conclusion was that groups and states were willing to cooperate across philosophical, ideological lines.

Third, the accusation about furnishing intell. It relied on gathered intell from the CIA and other intell agencies. As identified here:

Quote[/b] ]The team began its work in October of 2001. Â It was not involved in intelligence collection. Â Rather, it relied on reporting from the CIA and other parts of the intelligence community.

Fourth, the OSP was NOT between the white house and the CIA/NSA/other intell services. It was under the Department of Defense and then lower to the office of Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. Your CoC put the NSA and CIA below the OSP. in reality it is not. The CIA is NOT part of the pentagon. It is under the Director of National Intelligence, who is under the authority of the President of the United States. Here is how it looks:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">President of the United States of America

>Cabinet

+>Secretary of Defence

++>Office of Special Plans

++> National Security Agency

>Director of National Intelligence

+> Central Intelligence Agency

At the time there was no Director of National Intelligence, so the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency was just under the President. Thus still putting the CIA over the OSP.

Another fault is putting the OSP over the DoD, It is not. As Stated above it was from the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. Thus putting it under the Secretary of Defense, which puts it under the Pentagon. Your graph is totally messed up.

Quote[/b] ]The disclosure suggests that a controversial Pentagon office played a greater role than previously understood in shaping the administration's views on Iraq's alleged ties to the terrorist network behind the Sept. 11 attacks, and that it bypassed usual channels to make a case that conflicted with the conclusions of CIA analysts

But yet in the same article, third paragraph it says:

Quote[/b] ]Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Tenet said he did not believe the White House misrepresented the facts in making its case for war.

What does that tell you about the conflicting reports? Plus there is this from the DoD brief:

Quote[/b] ] I think what has become the focus of a lot of the press stories about this is the fact that in the course of its work, this team, in reviewing the intelligence that was provided to us by the CIA and the intelligence community, came up with some interesting observations about the linkages between Iraq and al Qaeda. Â And when they did, and they brought those to the attention of top-level officials here in the department, and we arranged for a briefing of these items to Secretary Rumsfeld, he looked at that and said, "That's interesting. Â Let's share it with George Tenet." Â And so some members of the team and I went over, I think it was in August of 2002, and shared some of these observations. Â And these were simply observations of this team based on the intelligence that the intelligence community had given to us, and it was just in the course of their reading it, this was incidental to the purpose of this group. Â But since they happened to come up with it and since it was an important subject, we went over, shared it with George and people at the CIA. Â My impression was it was pretty well received, and that was that. Â It was one meeting.

Let me bring in a quote from your last post

Quote[/b] ]Basicly an organisation was formed that lead the USA and the coalition wrongly to war.

Now, look above. see the part about Tenet testifying before the Armed Services Committee?

Why, I'm beginning to think your no more than a doomer and gloomer about federal policy. You three points are all discounted when the OSP connected Iraq with al-Qaeda, the organization that carried out 9/11. Plus, how do you explain the gassing of the Kurds and Iranians? you think he would just destroy all of the gas? an iron-fisted dictator like that?

about the other links: as I said a while back, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. its a site that ANYONE CAN EDIT AT ANYTIME. Then the washington post, the press. I don't trust them. After all they still have the Spanish-American War on their record. and for me, it is a very good reason not to trust them.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Quote[/b] ]The rational thinkers, those who actually can see far beyond borders. They come in every size and shape an place.

ah yes... the minority... what did they say?

Quote[/b] ]Considering that US was not doing well in Vietnam, even if we pledged, it would have been a real hard thing to follow upon.

Just because something is hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. That's what we call layziness.

Quote[/b] ]Unfortunately, ego or false pride gets in the way of clear understanding of the situation

Oh man this is a rare event... I'm going to tie in the above point to this one. If the terrorists see that the US will not leave after a long time of fighting. and they see that their friends are dying. and that the US is still in Iraq. Do you think they will keep coming to Iraq to blow up stuff? Common sense will tell you the more experienced fighters would go home seeing that the fight is useless and then there will be newbies leading newbies --always a bad combination, and they get killed faster than the others. now if jihad joe were to look at the rate of men dying in Iraq go up and the success rate still nowhere do you think he will think the US is winning? The only difference is time. and if you give it, violence will go down.

Quote[/b] ]No, it's about the idea you proposed. Your idea is that some has to be sacrificed for greater good, and I applied it to a hypothetical situation on this forum. If I see a little bit of problem brewing up I should just ban the member according to your argument. So your idea is what's on the debate.

My idea is that if Israel sees Iran with a nuke and we all know Iran has been threatening to wipe Israel off the map. Do you think Israel would let Iran have the chance to launch it? The chance to kill thousands after a warning that they will? letting them do it is just stupid. Its the same way with Iraq and the US.

Your scenario is different. you are thinking that just because you see that the guy is about to do it you ban him for it. That's not right. This concept is based on expressed intent/threatening. you are basing it on assumed intent. Saddam used WMD's before, he wasn't afraid to use them again after two incidents. Iran has said it wants Israel wiped off the map. You see the difference? Here you see threats.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]The economy, maybe. The American survivability, no. He could have done more than just launching cruise missiles.

Which would have happened if Republicans did not tackle at every corner.

Is that why the US congress, mostly republican, passed public law 105-235. Here let me show you a quote:

Quote[/b] ] Â Â Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.

Approved August 14, 1998.

. Thinking about changing you mind yet?

Quote[/b] ]The choice is that you can stand back and watch one of them get beatne down and then take the standing one down. unfortuantely, what US did, and mostly by Reagan administration is that they decided to help one of them instead of waiting for one of them to finish.

your going to have to explain this one in greater detail.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]According to Rumsfeld and The Bush administration 3 years ago, yes

"Major Combat Operations against the Iraqi Regime"

now it's: "Operations against Saddam loyalists and terrorists"

So you are calling current operations, minor, right?

It was Rumsfeld who said that Iraqis would come greet us with flowers and sing and dance.

Do you under stand the phrase in quotation marks? did you space out after against? Concerning the generalized term of "operations" you stand back and see that Operation Enduring Freedom wasn't a minor one. so whats to determine the size of an operation? It sure isn't the word "operation."

But on to the Iraqis singing and dancing. some of them did and some of them didn't. but it still comes back to the first part of the later sentence. there was some that sung and danced. in a sense, he was right. Iraqi people did sing and dance. but you all are pessimistic and looked and said "well hey not everyone did."

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

wikepedia is notoriously unreliable and really should not be used as a source. i was reading the article on the 'long telegram' and it comments that the telegram said:-

"Soviet aggression was not fundamentally aligned with the Russian people's views or with economic reality"

which is infact completly incorrect and what the long memo was actually saying.

completly OT but it shows how wikepedia is just opinion not fact on anything that dosnt have a date.

this only proves that you found one entry that was - according to your undocumented statement - wrong. Drawing conclusions from this on the reliability of Wikipedia as a whole is totally wrong.

Having said that. Did you correct the entry and documented the sources of your information? If no I strongly suggest you to do so or at least start a discussion about the topic for that article.

That Wikipedia can be edited by anyone is both its strength and its weakness. However I have made the experience that the majority of articles I visited contains reliable information and an increasing number of articles is documenting its sources. Now I cannot draw conclusions from this on the reliability of Wikipedia as a whole but when the articles fulfil certain quality conditions I must say that those articles can be used as sources without problem. I have seen scientific papers with much more shady sources...

Also a source doesn't mean it must be correct. A source simply shows others where your information comes from. Be it wrong or false. Therefore I strongly encourage everyone to provide sources. Also Wikipedia sources. The advantage of this is that others can check this information - also by following the sources of the source.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

but wikepedia contributors are anonymous is personality, suggesting fact.

Wikepedia has no value over Biast documants. other documents we know who wrote them and what context they were used. Â So even if its propaganda or obviously biast they are useful in seeing the situation/opposition etc..

documented sources in wikepedia are a different matter and fair enough to use. Â i am talking of box writing which is not backed up sufficently. Â The problem is not even Historians agree on alot of 'facts' and therefor using information from unknown authors holds no reliability or historical usefulness.

For the purposes of this debate wikepedia is good enough as a source of reference, not as a means of proving an argument. Â However i do agree people should carry on using it here, this is a good debate, not a university Thesis.

sorry to go soo OT Â and Donner does make a good point for the use of Wikepedia

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Quote[/b] ]The rational thinkers, those who actually can see far beyond borders. They come in every size and shape an place.

ah yes... the minority... what did they say?

exactly what would happen right now. Civil war, guerrilla warfare. If you go back to Iraq thread 1 and 2. you will realize that a lot of prediction made by those who opposed the war is now coming true. Of course, you can as always pretend it didn't happen and try to pull things offroad as you did with lsat two discussions.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Considering that US was not doing well in Vietnam, even if we pledged, it would have been a real hard thing to follow upon.

Just because something is hard doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. That's what we call layziness.

There is difference between knowing what you can do and working hard. US already got its rear pulled out from Vietnam and it was obvious that we cannot go back in. But I guess that is not a factor right?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Unfortunately, ego or false pride gets in the way of clear understanding of the situation

Oh man this is a rare event... I'm going to tie in the above point to this one. If the terrorists see that the US will not leave after a long time of fighting. and they see that their friends are dying. and that the US is still in Iraq. Do you think they will keep coming to Iraq to blow up stuff? Common sense will tell you the more experienced fighters would go home seeing that the fight is useless and then there will be newbies leading newbies --always a bad combination, and they get killed faster than the others. now if jihad joe were to look at the rate of men dying in Iraq go up and the success rate still nowhere do you think he will think the US is winning? The only difference is time. and if you give it, violence will go down.

That's what Russians thought for 10 years in Afghanistan and look what they ended up doing. Do you possibly think you can spend billions of dollars per year without producing results? Get a grip on reality. US troops been killing insurgents for last 3 yrs and they are still not done, but is still a big threat that is growing. Rumsfeld once proudly said that insurgency was in the last moments. That was about 1 year ago.

You obviously don't understand the fact that even though they are losing their men, they have more coming in. Good luck with your fantasy. It really contradicts reality.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]No, it's about the idea you proposed. Your idea is that some has to be sacrificed for greater good, and I applied it to a hypothetical situation on this forum. If I see a little bit of problem brewing up I should just ban the member according to your argument. So your idea is what's on the debate.

My idea is that if Israel sees Iran with a nuke and we all know Iran has been threatening to wipe Israel off the map. Do you think Israel would let Iran have the chance to launch it? The chance to kill thousands after a warning that they will? letting them do it is just stupid. Its the same way with Iraq and the US.

Your scenario is different. you are thinking that just because you see that the guy is about to do it you ban him for it. That's not right. This concept is based on expressed intent/threatening. you are basing it on assumed intent. Saddam used WMD's before, he wasn't afraid to use them again after two incidents. Iran has said it wants Israel wiped off the map. You see the difference? Here you see threats.

I'm not basing it on assumed event. In fact Duke got banned because he was a troll and his behavior afterwards proved that he didn't know a thing about what he was talking. for the greater good of this community, I should have banned him long time ago, but unlike TBA, we patiently waited and waited and gave chances until the limit was reached where his actions were indeed disrupting this place. So we tend to be reactionary instead of proactionary. Since now you are getting into details, let's see. Saddam used WMD within HIS country, and when faced with Coalition in Desert Storm, he didn't use. What does that say? You cannot say that he uses WMDs everytime, and if you insist on "once is always", then one strike and someone gets banned form this board is also a valid option. Iran made some stupid comments, but did they ever do anything that US wouldn't do to Iran?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]The economy, maybe. The American survivability, no. He could have done more than just launching cruise missiles.

Which would have happened if Republicans did not tackle at every corner.

Is that why the US congress, mostly republican, passed public law 105-235. Here let me show you a quote:

Quote[/b] ] Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Government of Iraq is in material and unacceptable breach of its international obligations, and therefore the President is urged to take appropriate action, in accordance with the Constitution and relevant laws of the United States, to bring Iraq into compliance with its international obligations.

Approved August 14, 1998.

. Thinking about changing you mind yet?

And why did they do it? Because they were looking forward to feel great about themselves, regardless of facts. funny thing is same UN that CONs bitch about is the same UN that they use to make case against Iraq, which had nothing to do with immediate threat to US. Here's another fact for you. GOP complained about afghanistan missile strike ordered against OBL.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]The choice is that you can stand back and watch one of them get beatne down and then take the standing one down. unfortuantely, what US did, and mostly by Reagan administration is that they decided to help one of them instead of waiting for one of them to finish.

your going to have to explain this one in greater detail.

Instead of helping Hussein, we should have let Iran and Iraq duke it out themselves. You were claiming that we had to support saddam at the time, but there were other options which were slightly less worse than supporting him.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]According to Rumsfeld and The Bush administration 3 years ago, yes

"Major Combat Operations against the Iraqi Regime"

now it's: "Operations against Saddam loyalists and terrorists"

So you are calling current operations, minor, right?

It was Rumsfeld who said that Iraqis would come greet us with flowers and sing and dance.

Do you under stand the phrase in quotation marks? did you space out after against? Concerning the generalized term of "operations" you stand back and see that Operation Enduring Freedom wasn't a minor one. so whats to determine the size of an operation? It sure isn't the word "operation."

But on to the Iraqis singing and dancing. some of them did and some of them didn't. but it still comes back to the first part of the later sentence. there was some that sung and danced. in a sense, he was right. Iraqi people did sing and dance. but you all are pessimistic and looked and said "well hey not everyone did."

Seems like you need to read what you post. Bush proudly declared that major operations in Iraq is done. Unfortunately, the opposite of that would be minor operations, but even after 3 years, it's a major operation. so Bush got it wrong 3 years ago.

Nope I'm saying that Iraqis now don't give a damn to us. One of the things that were discussed soon after Baghdad fell was that now Iraqis have freedom to hate US, and it only took a year for us to lose credibility with them. They are not helping us as much as they did in first few weeks, and there are places where US soldiers prefer not to go. does this look like someone who would sing and dance and greet us?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Quote[/b] ]exactly what would happen right now. Civil war, guerrilla warfare. If you go back to Iraq thread 1 and 2. you will realize that a lot of prediction made by those who opposed the war is now coming true. Of course, you can as always pretend it didn't happen and try to pull things offroad as you did with lsat two discussions.

Well considering that over 90% of Iraqis outside the Sunni triangle feel very safe in their neighborhood (November 2006

Report to Congress), not much of a civil war is going on now is this? Again, I don't trust the press that much. They make it out to be something that it isn't. In fact in the same report, it states that 54% of attacks are in 2 of the 18 provinces of Iraq. Nice predictions *rolls eyes*

Quote[/b] ]There is difference between knowing what you can do and working hard. US already got its rear pulled out from Vietnam and it was obvious that we cannot go back in. But I guess that is not a factor right?

the main factor that pisses me off is that US units were engaged by Soviet Units and even PRC units. We were there to combat communism and the hippies drugged up in the states complained and spoke louder than the people who actually knew what is going on. Such as the same scenario now. people don't know what is really going on. But the fact remains, the US had a pledge. it should have honored it.

Quote[/b] ]That's what Russians thought for 10 years in Afghanistan and look what they ended up doing. Do you possibly think you can spend billions of dollars per year without producing results? Get a grip on reality.

Reality Check: The Soviets were fighting people funded by a superpower when they were hitting rock bottom. This isn't the case. The US is fighting people supplied by nations that spend an amount to terrorists that is significantly less than the amount the US spends on the military. After time, who do you think will run out of money? better question, who do you think will give up?

Quote[/b] ]US troops been killing insurgents for last 3 yrs and they are still not done, but is still a big threat that is growing.

you shoot one, another crosses into Iraq to fight you. But the threat is subsiding. slowly --but unmistakably, dropping.

Quote[/b] ]You obviously don't understand the fact that even though they are losing their men, they have more coming in. Good luck with your fantasy. It really contradicts reality.

What did I tell you? jihad joe would notice they aren't getting anywhere and leave. but still some more terrorists will come in but they would not be as experienced as old jihad joe. thus, they will be killed faster. then after seeing more and more greener troops come in Iraq, recruiting will stall and no one will go to Iraq to win against the US.

Quote[/b] ]Since now you are getting into details, let's see. Saddam used WMD within HIS country, and when faced with Coalition in Desert Storm, he didn't use. What does that say?

a fast moving force cannot be hit hard. Saddam's stockpile was not that big, but in the case you are presuming the US and coalition forces acted in reaction to the NBC attacks in '91. He refused to get rid of them and so we took him out for the greater good of the middle east.

You see, it comes down to the saying "don't bring a knife to a gunfight." Saddam had NBC weapons, he knew that if he used them the US, UK, and Israel will be lighting up the sky the moment afterwords. So he figured the US would leave after harsh unconventional warfare. and your wanting it to be true?

Quote[/b] ]Iran made some stupid comments, but did they ever do anything that US wouldn't do to Iran?

Would you pick a fight with someone 10 times your size?

Quote[/b] ]And why did they do it? Because they were looking forward to feel great about themselves, regardless of facts.

Quote[/b] ]Instead of helping Hussein, we should have let Iran and Iraq duke it out themselves.

And see Iraq lose and Soviet influence spread. If you remember the Islamic Revolutionaries were backed by the Soviets.

Quote[/b] ]Seems like you need to read what you post. Bush proudly declared that major operations in Iraq is done. Unfortunately, the opposite of that would be minor operations, but even after 3 years, it's a major operation. so Bush got it wrong 3 years ago.

and who was it against? could it be the terrorists? Besides, ISF forces are conducting Major operations now, not the US.

Quote[/b] ]They are not helping us as much as they did in first few weeks, and there are places where US soldiers prefer not to go. does this look like someone who would sing and dance and greet us?

because of the terrorists. I can only account for maybe three areas in which US soldiers don't want to go:

1) Sunni Triangle

2) Al Anbar hotspots

3) Outside the green zone in Baghdad

But hey, there are places here in the US where I rather not go. what's your point? Iraq isn't so different than the US back in the segregation days. Now look how we turned out.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Word on the street is that China is planning on taking out US satetillites! THOSE COMMIE BASTARDS.

China is hardly communist. Â Not in comparison to the USSR. Â And the USSR itself was no way near true Communism . Â i wish people would stop using it like this, it makes it sound like such a dirty word - which its not, its just a set of ideals, just like Capitalism.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Quote[/b] ]exactly what would happen right now. Civil war, guerrilla warfare. If you go back to Iraq thread 1 and 2. you will realize that a lot of prediction made by those who opposed the war is now coming true. Of course, you can as always pretend it didn't happen and try to pull things offroad as you did with lsat two discussions.

Well considering that over 90% of Iraqis outside the Sunni triangle feel very safe in their neighborhood (November 2006

Report to Congress), not much of a civil war is going on now is this? Again, I don't trust the press that much. They make it out to be something that it isn't. In fact in the same report, it states that 54% of attacks are in 2 of the 18 provinces of Iraq. Nice predictions *rolls eyes*

uh huh. people getting killed by 10s 20s and 30s and even more per day is NOT a civili war? Unfortunately, if it is so safe, then why are we sending additional troops to Baghdad which is in dire needs of security? Number-wise it may not be significant, but the problem of Baghdad could reach far beyond the numbers. And what was the prediction by pro-war crowd? We'd be out by now? Democratic Iraq would be the catalyst for change in ME?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]There is difference between knowing what you can do and working hard. US already got its rear pulled out from Vietnam and it was obvious that we cannot go back in. But I guess that is not a factor right?

the main factor that pisses me off is that US units were engaged by Soviet Units and even PRC units. We were there to combat communism and the hippies drugged up in the states complained and spoke louder than the people who actually knew what is going on. Such as the same scenario now. people don't know what is really going on. But the fact remains, the US had a pledge. it should have honored it.

Actually, the US gov't managed to screw up themselves. Just look at Tonkin bay. False report and immediate screw up to acknowledge the mistake made gov't untrustworthy and ultimately led to the whole withdrawl due to rising cost and unfavorable public opinion. No matter how much you'd like to stand behind principle there are times when you are so screwed up you can't do it.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]That's what Russians thought for 10 years in Afghanistan and look what they ended up doing. Do you possibly think you can spend billions of dollars per year without producing results? Get a grip on reality.

Reality Check: The Soviets were fighting people funded by a superpower when they were hitting rock bottom. This isn't the case. The US is fighting people supplied by nations that spend an amount to terrorists that is significantly less than the amount the US spends on the military. After time, who do you think will run out of money? better question, who do you think will give up?

And that's the funny part. If the amount that is spent on insurgency is less than what we sent to Afghanistan to fight soviets, how come we are not seeing any results? We don't have inifinite amount of money to spend on one thing and this war is costing more and more.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]US troops been killing insurgents for last 3 yrs and they are still not done, but is still a big threat that is growing.

you shoot one, another crosses into Iraq to fight you. But the threat is subsiding. slowly --but unmistakably, dropping.

Yeah, like Rumsfeld said about 1yr and half ago?

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]You obviously don't understand the fact that even though they are losing their men, they have more coming in. Good luck with your fantasy. It really contradicts reality.

What did I tell you? jihad joe would notice they aren't getting anywhere and leave. but still some more terrorists will come in but they would not be as experienced as old jihad joe. thus, they will be killed faster. then after seeing more and more greener troops come in Iraq, recruiting will stall and no one will go to Iraq to win against the US.

Your hypothetical situation is not congruent with reality. There are abundant supply of jihadists applying for insurgency, and if there was a significant drop in their recruitment, it would be a notable news that would not be passed up. However, the current situation has no indication to back-up your hypothetical mechanism of recruiting, not to mention the fact that it contradict's CON's perception that jihadists are die hard suicidial.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Since now you are getting into details, let's see. Saddam used WMD within HIS country, and when faced with Coalition in Desert Storm, he didn't use. What does that say?

a fast moving force cannot be hit hard. Saddam's stockpile was not that big, but in the case you are presuming the US and coalition forces acted in reaction to the NBC attacks in '91. He refused to get rid of them and so we took him out for the greater good of the middle east.

You see, it comes down to the saying "don't bring a knife to a gunfight." Saddam had NBC weapons, he knew that if he used them the US, UK, and Israel will be lighting up the sky the moment afterwords. So he figured the US would leave after harsh unconventional warfare. and your wanting it to be true?

Kuwait is not a fast moving part, nor is Israel. How many WMDs were used? None. You mentioned that Saddam did not have big stockpiles of WMDs. Now that is a contradiction because TBA was selling its case for war on Iraq's posession of WMDs. Now you are trying to argue that he had some, but not big. If he had some, where are they? WMDs are not exactly easy thing to move. Saddam's WMDs were destroyed thanks to inspection, which is why there is no WMD findings.

And your second paragraph also contradicts that he is a threat to the region. Whether he had WMDs or not, he would not have been able to use one becuse of mutual use.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Iran made some stupid comments, but did they ever do anything that US wouldn't do to Iran?

Would you pick a fight with someone 10 times your size?

You just contradicted your own argument. You stated that Iran was making (credible) threats to US, and yet now you are saying that they are not picking a fight with US.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]And why did they do it? Because they were looking forward to feel great about themselves, regardless of facts.

They complained because they thought of their own agenda before national security. On that same line of your reasoning, some far left complainging about our operations in Afghanistan is correct. OBL is still alive.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Instead of helping Hussein, we should have let Iran and Iraq duke it out themselves.

And see Iraq lose and Soviet influence spread. If you remember the Islamic Revolutionaries were backed by the Soviets.

This is a classic material.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]Seems like you need to read what you post. Bush proudly declared that major operations in Iraq is done. Unfortunately, the opposite of that would be minor operations, but even after 3 years, it's a major operation. so Bush got it wrong 3 years ago.

and who was it against? could it be the terrorists? Besides, ISF forces are conducting Major operations now, not the US.

Oh dear...now you are really confusing people. ISF for Afghanistan, yes. ISF for Iraq? Nope. The two major troop contribution for Iraq was US and UK. Now UK is slowly moving their presence out. It is practically US war. The "international" troop that TBA proudly talked about included small number of security forces that has no significant bearings to the whole picture. It is mostly US/UK war in Iraq. The "major combat" comment was used in terms of OIF, not on Afghanistan.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]They are not helping us as much as they did in first few weeks, and there are places where US soldiers prefer not to go. does this look like someone who would sing and dance and greet us?

because of the terrorists. I can only account for maybe three areas in which US soldiers don't want to go:

1) Sunni Triangle

2) Al Anbar hotspots

3) Outside the green zone in Baghdad

But hey, there are places here in the US where I rather not go. what's your point? Iraq isn't so different than the US back in the segregation days. Now look how we turned out.

Yeah, and that's why foreign journalists can freely move around rest of the area without any security...That 3 spots you mentioned are a big portion which our troops cannot handle and needs to if they want to declare victory. Funny you mentioned that a capital of a nation is not safe to go out without military support in most areas. Goes to whow that the war is far from being over.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Funny you mentioned that a capital of a nation is not safe to go out without military support in most areas. Goes to whow that the war is far from being over.

Ever been to Washington D.C.? Â I wouldn't go out of the "green zone" there without military escort either.

I find the blame game quite amusing. Â There is no one side that is right and the other wrong. Â Politics in America is nothing more than a pupet show to keep us believing that we still have some control over our government. Â We don't.

They don't listen, they don't care, so long as they remain in power. Â What we have in America today is nothing more than the rule of the elite, Left and Right.

And because America has historically only been reactionary to times of crisis, things will progress as they have. Â New leader, new party, same problems, same bullsheet.

I can't say what the breaking point will be. Â I'm starting to wonder if Americans will ever hear the wake up call or have the spine to stand up.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

funny thing is same UN that CONs bitch about is the same UN that they use to make case against Iraq, which had nothing to do with immediate threat to US.

The U.S. made a case with the U.N. in order to build an international coalition.

The British parliament for example voted for no military action without a second U.N. resolution. (Which never came).

The U.S. stated that it was willing to go it alone, so I don't think they really cared too much what the U.N. thought. But at the same time, any alliance you can get is worth taking.

Quote[/b] ] The two major troop contribution for Iraq was US and UK. Now UK is slowly moving their presence out. It is practically US war. The "international" troop that TBA proudly talked about included small number of security forces that has no significant bearings to the whole picture. It is mostly US/UK war in Iraq.

I'd believe that when you see it if I were you. Despite the hand over of two provinces, British troop deployments to Iraq remain unchanged.

The government has consistently told us that the troops are about to be withdrawn. But not actually withdrawn them.

They will all be home by Christmas I expect, just like they were last year and the year before etc etc.

Our U.S. alliance is very valuable to us. Our troops won't leave without them. It pisses us off, especially as we think the yanks are making a pigs ear out of their end of it, but we are in it as long as they are.

We can't pull out or their supply lines will be compromised.

That's not to say our troops won't all be home by Christmas....it would be unthinkable to suggest otherwise.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Quote[/b] ] The two major troop contribution for Iraq was US and UK. Now UK is slowly moving their presence out. It is practically US war. The "international" troop that TBA proudly talked about included small number of security forces that has no significant bearings to the whole picture. It is mostly US/UK war in Iraq.

I'd believe that when you see it if I were you. Despite the hand over of two provinces, British troop deployments to Iraq remain unchanged.

The government has consistently told us that the troops are about to be withdrawn. But not actually withdrawn them.

They will all be home by Christmas I expect, just like they were last year and the year before etc etc.

Our U.S. alliance is very valuable to us. Our troops won't leave without them. It pisses us off, especially as we think the yanks are making a pigs ear out of their end of it, but we are in it as long as they are.

We can't pull out or their supply lines will be compromised.

That's not to say our troops won't all be home by Christmas....it would be unthinkable to suggest otherwise.

check your information. The Royal Anglican Regiment has recently returned for good and more are being pulled out. Â When you hear of more troops going its becuase theres a 6 month tour of duty so there replacing units not additional ones. Â Spain and Poland are also pulling out of Iraq for good. somthing Bush describes as a victory for terrorism. Â For me it shows the failure of US forign policy. Â Countries are seeing what a mess it is and getting the hell out before it gets worse (which is inevatable).

Iraq is relaticly quiet in the south. British soldiers are just policing and border patrolling. The real battle is Afganistan, where the population isnt a problem, the taliban is. We should move all our troops there, where theres a problem which is fixable. And where we are wining, despite what papers try to make out.

In one of the most chilling public statements ever made by a U.S. Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales questioned whether the U.S. Constitution grants habeas corpus rights of a fair trial to every American.

Responding to questions from Sen. Arlen Specter at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Jan. 18, Gonzales argued that the Constitution doesnâ€™t explicitly bestow habeas corpus rights; it merely says when the so-called Great Writ can be suspended.

â€œThere is no expressed grant of habeas in the Constitution; thereâ€™s a prohibition against taking it away,â€ Gonzales said.

â€œWait a minute,â€ Specter interjected. â€œThe Constitution says you canâ€™t take it away except in case of rebellion or invasion. Doesnâ€™t that mean you have the right of habeas corpus unless thereâ€™s a rebellion or invasion?â€

Gonzales continued, â€œThe Constitution doesnâ€™t say every individual in the United States or citizen is hereby granted or assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesnâ€™t say that. It simply says the right shall not be suspendedâ€ except in cases of rebellion or invasion.â€

â€œYou may be treading on your interdiction of violating common sense,â€ Specter said.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

In other news.. the US attourney general (or whatever he is called) thinks right to habeas corpus does not exist in the US constitution. Whaddayaknow.

huh... well by technicality he's right. but there is a whole article on amending the constitution. So, he may be saying "hint: fix it." donno. but what would be the US constitution if it was without generalizations? a blank piece of paper?

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I saw a documentary called 'This divided state' or something similar, showing how a very conservative city (Can't remember the name) in the US being very angry about the visit of Michael Moore to their local University.

I was pretty shocked how unbelievebal stupid and stuborn those people were, so I kinda assumed it was yet another 'out of proportion' thingy to hit us here over-seas from the big US of A - and that the actual incident weren't as big as it was stated in the documentary.

Then I stumble upon this today, and oh my lord jesus.... What in the world is these people thinking? And how on Earth can this happen in what should be a civilised country? Great entertainment, though - especially the following quote made my day although I almost fell down my chair laughing:

Quote[/b] ]""No, you will not teach or show that propagandist Al Gore video to my child, blaming our nation -- the greatest nation ever to exist on this planet -- for global warming,""